[blackbrokkoli]

Note that this says "best programmers" not "people best at having business impact by making software".

I wonder about this often: If you want to have impact/solve problems/make money, not just optimizing killing your JIRA tickets, should you invest a given hour into understanding the lowest code layer of framework X, or talk to people in the business domain? Read documentation or a book on accessibility in embedded systems? Pick up yet another tech stack or simply get faster at the one you have that is "good enough"?

Not easy to answer, but worth keeping in mind that there is more to programming than just programming.

[esperent]

> Note that this says "best programmers" not "people best at having business impact by making software".

We can look at a software developer as a craftsperson, and appreciate their skill and their craft, and we can look at them as a business asset, and those are two different things.

Both of which have their merits, but this article is clearly focused on the craftsperson side and that's enough. We don't need to make everything about business and money, and we definitely don't need to reduce the beauty and craft of writing code to Jira tickets.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I’m retired, these days, and spend the majority of every day, writing software.

I treat it as a craft, and do it for personal fulfillment and learning. I enjoy learning, and solving problems. I also enjoy creating stuff that I find aesthetically pleasing.

For example, I write iOS apps, and I’m working on a new version of a timer app that I’ve had in the App Store, for over a decade. I had added a Watch app to it, and had gotten to the point where it was ready for the App Store, but I kept having sync issues. It wasn’t a “showstopper,” but it was aesthetically not pleasing.

I determined that it was an issue that could be addressed by improving the fundamental design of the app, which had basically been constant for many years.

So I'm rewriting it completely.

That’s not something that makes “commercial” sense, but it’s what I want to do. I’ll also take the opportunity to redesign the basic UI.

I enjoy having that kind of freedom.

I also like to write about my work. I know that very few people are interested in reading it, but I do it, because it helps me to learn (the best way to learn, is to teach), and it helps me to focus my thoughts.

[jbreckmckye]

Generally we aren't paid for our business expertise. In fact, most businesses actively resist giving developers deep domain responsibility.

This is manifest in management methodologies: developers are largely interchangeable cells in a spreadsheet. I'm not saying this is a good thing.

The reasons for this are complex, but generally, business people want us to solve the technical problems they can't handle themselves, they don't want us to "relieve" them of product management, customer relationships, and industry knowledge. Why would they? It would devalue them.

[yobbo]

Yep. A developer with "business impact" might be seen as a liability.

One aspect might be that a developer who engages in "business" effectively stops being "subordinate". Management decisions need to be justified on a different level to maintain legitimacy.

[roguecoder]

The result of that top-down management style is buggy code, blown deadlines, security holes, and the slowest software development I've ever seen.

I've found it possible to migrate to a less top-down Desert style just by finding executives who are frustrated by those problems and saying, "I have an idea I've seen help" and then getting the team together and saying, "hey, it turns out the executives would like us to write software well. What should we try first?"

Product has plenty of work remaining: they should be handling whatever subset of strategy, prioritization, analytics, BI, QA, facilitation, design and contracts that they have the skills for. But it requires engineers to actually collaborate with them as a peer, rather than engage in power struggles, and that requires everyone on the team to understand what we are building, for whom, and why.

[rrr_oh_man]

> Generally we aren't paid for our business expertise. In fact, most businesses actively resist giving developers deep domain responsibility.

Chicken/egg imho.

[pydry]

Im somewhat puzzled as to why so many devs are insistent that being a good developer means you need to be a good PM.

These roles require wildly different skills and knowledge.

Usually the outcomes are better if you combine two people who are good at their jobs rather than hoping one person can do it all.

[nvarsj]

The latter are the ones that get promoted to senior staff+, or more likely become directors/VPs.

There is a very low cap on career growth if you are purely focused on programming.

So yes, if you want to climb the corporate ladder or run your own business, programming is a fraction of the skills required.

I think though it's okay to just focus on coding. It's fun and why many of us got into the industry. Not everyone likes the business side of things and that's okay.

[blackbrokkoli]

I don't know. Career plans aside, to me, making software is a means to an end.

There is no inherent value to producing software, as there may be in producing car tires or bananas. The best software is no software.

And then who is the better programmer, the one who knows more about how to make software, or the one who knows more about what software to make?

[patrickjd]

> worth keeping in mind that there is more to programming than just programming.

As a side note, this is what I keep pointing out when people talk about code generated by LLMs. As an activity, this is just one thing that programmers do.

I think the answer to your question (a good question indeed) is "both", or rather to balance development of both capabilities. The decision of how to spend time won't be a single decision but is repeated often through the years. The Staff+ engineers with whom I work _mostly_ excel at both aspects, with a small handful being technical specialists. I haven't encountered any who have deep domain knowledge but limited technical depth.

(edit: formatting)

[karmakaze]

Not to be snarky, but my definition of best programmers would balance these. I do spend more time than most understanding the depths of tech stacks and the breadth of potentially useful ones. At the same time I strive to make software that gets the job done with only the abstractions that pay off in a short to medium timeframe.

The trap avoid are those business impact folks that demonstrate an unwillingness to get better at actual programming, which ironically would increase their impact.

Edit: an example is fixing a problem without understanding its cause.

[davedx]

> should you invest a given hour into understanding the lowest code layer of framework X, or talk to people in the business domain?

I think talking to people in business domain is the most important thing you can do in SWE or IT in general. The business is the entire reason you write every line of code, the more you understand, the better you will be at your job.

I do find drilling down into lower layers of your software stack helpful, and can make you a better programmer, but in a much more specific way.

> Pick up yet another tech stack or simply get faster at the one you have that is "good enough"?

Both of these are programming skills and less important, IMO. Trends and technologies come and go; if they're useful/sticky enough, you'll end up having to learn them in the course of your job anyway. Tech that's so good/sticky it sticks around (e.g. react) you'll naturally end up working with a lot and will learn it as you go.

It's definitely good to have a solid understanding of the core of things though. So for react, really make sure you understand how useState, useEffect work inside and out. For Java it'll be other things.

[ethanwillis]

> The business is the entire reason you write every line of code

It's actually not the entire reason i write or have written every line of code.

It may be surprising to some people on this website for entrepreneurs but there are in fact people who enjoy writing code for the sake of it.

[lacn]

What's most interesting to me about your point compared to parent comment's is that you're saying "statically, over all time, the most valuable thing to do among all your choices is to understand the business," whereas the parent is saying "dynamically, in this moment, what is most valuable thing to do in this iteration of my actions?"

I think your question is most interesting in terms of long term skill mix or "skill portfolio" a.k.a the career viewpoint, while the parent's is more interesting on a day-to-day basis as you navigate the state space of bringing a project to completion. On a given day, understanding the business may not be the most valuable thing to do, but to your point over the course of a job or career it probably is.

(For example, I can say that I already have sufficient business context to do my programming task for tomorrow. Asking more questions about the business would be wasteful: I need to go update the batch job to achieve the business outcome.)

EDIT: I might go one step further and say the most valuable skill is not understanding the business but understanding how to match and adapt technologies to the business (assuming you want a career as a programmer). Ultimately the business drives income, but presumably you have a job because their business requires technology. So the most valuable skill is, as efficiently as possible, making the technology do what the business needs. That's more of a balance / fit between the two than just "understanding the business."

[soulchild37]

I am really interested to read articles about "people best at having business impact by making software" , so far I only discovered resources like kalzumeus (patio11), indiehackers, microconf, business of software forum (very old).

[davedx]

Read everything DHH wrote, he has lots of insights on this. Scroll down to his books: https://dhh.dk

I found Lean Startup to be very good too.

[dakiol]

You can be the “best” programmer at home/internet, and just another employee at work.